ISSN 2039-2117 (online) Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences Vol 6 No 5 S2 ISSN 2039-9340 (print) MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy September 2015 Debate Background on the “Neo Romantic Period” in the Soviet Literary Research of the 1960-1980s Kirill Nikolaevich Ankudinov Uchuzhuk Maskhudovich Panesh Kutas Nukhovna Paranuk Galina Viktorovna Sokolova Federal State Budget Institution of Higher Professional Education «Adyghe State University» (ASU), 385000 Maikop, street Pervomayskaya, 208, Russian Federation; Email: [email protected] Doi:10.5901/mjss.2015.v6n5s2p191 Abstract The article is a local research related to the solution of the general theoretical literary issue: whether Romanticism is beyond Romanticism boundaries as a certain historical trend. The article reveals the methodology of solving this problem that combines the achievements of ‘sociological’ and ‘formal’ national schools of literary research, as well as uses the method of philosophical metahermeneutics. In addition, the article provides a panorama of methodological approaches to the discussion of the Romanticism problem in foreign literary research. The bulk of the article examines the controversy in the Soviet literary research of the 60-80s in the 20th century about the possible existence of ‘new Romanticism’ in the initial method of ‘socialist realism’. This controversy has revealed two opposite approaches to the issue of ‘Romanticism post Romanticism’. The first approach expressed in the statements of G. Pospelov, V. Vanslov N. Gulyaev, E. Maymin (et al.) categorically denied ‘Romanticism post Romanticism’ as “Romanticism had already existed before”. The second approach, represented by A. Kireyeva, A. Ovcharenko, U. R. Focht, on the contrary, suggested the possibility (and even the regularity) of this phenomenon in the Soviet art. The article compares the seemingly typical Soviet polemic with the analogous polemic about Romanticism that erupted in the Russian literary criticism of the 30-40s in the 19th century. In ‘the debate about Romanticism’ the points of view both of ‘the Romanticism deniers’ referring to a unicity of (medieval) Romanticism – such as Nikolai Nadezhdin, and the supporters of the concept of ‘Romanticism and Timelessness’ – such as Vissarion Belinsky, were presented. The appearance of identical theoretical collisions in the Russian and Soviet literary research is inferred from the objective existence of the two types of thinking – analytical and synthetic – and the inevitability of ideological clashes of these types of thinking supporters. Analytical thinking is the ability to see and identify only those cultural phenomena that have been passed and digested by the mankind’s previous experience, and the movement of culture is determined by the “eternal side of nature and the human spirit” for synthetic thinking (Belinsky, 1981). Keywords: Romanticism, new Romanticism, realism, socialist realism, method, Hegelianism, V Belinsky, N. Nadezhdin, G. Pospelov, A. Kireyeva. 1. Introduction The wording of the article theme, mentioning ‘Neo Romanticism’, indicates that this topic is methodologically justified only if Romanticism as general cultural (and, in particular, literary) phenomenon may remain beyond the boundaries of Romanticism as a concrete historical phenomenon. A cultural direction of the late 18th – early 19th centuries is commonly referred to as ‘Romanticism’. This direction has been extensively studied in many humanities researches. There is no doubt in such statements of possible researches as ‘the Romanticism in German poetry of the nineties of the 18th century’, ‘Romanticism in English poetry of the tenths of the 19th century’, ‘Romanticism in French poetry of the twenties of the 19th century’. This article is devoted to understanding the concept of ‘Romanticism in Russian poetry of the second half of the 19th – beginning of the 21st century’. But can there be ‘Romanticism of the twentieth century’ or ‘Romanticism of the twenty-first century’? There are two answers to this question. The first answer is “No, absolutely impossible”. The second option of the answer is “Yes, Romanticism beyond Romanticism is possible”. As we see, the issue is controversial. 191 ISSN 2039-2117 (online) Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences Vol 6 No 5 S2 ISSN 2039-9340 (print) MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy September 2015 2. Research Methods The problem ‘Romanticism beyond Romanticism’ has always been on the periphery of the domestic and foreign literary criticism of the twentieth century; this poses considerable difficulties in the selection of methodological tools. During the twentieth century in the Soviet, in Russian and partly in the foreign literary research there fought two methodologies, realizing themselves in philological works of two competing schools: ‘the sociological school’ and ‘the formal school’. We use the methods of both these schools. It is impossible to speak about the features of discourse in a particular period of time in isolation from the socio- political and socio-psychological climate of the epoch. That is why we have an important tradition of ‘sociological school’ in literary criticism. On the other hand, we are actively using the achievements of the ‘formal school’ – especially its ‘Opoyaz’ school. Finally, on the practical side of the study, we apply the methodology of text hermeneutics taken in a particular variant, the philosophical metahermeneutics. 3. Results and Discussion The problem of Romanticism boundaries as a socio-cultural phenomenon was actively studied in the foreign literature. Thus, in 1984 a book by V. Nemoianu “The Taming of Romanticism” was published (Nemoianu, 1984), in which the researcher actually reduced the entire Romanticism to a very vague term ‘Biedermeier’. Many of the foreign literary critics have tried to interpret the issue of Romanticism with the help of religion. In 1953 very important studies by M. H. Abrams “The Mirror and the Lamp” (Abrams, 1953) were published. For M. H. Abrams Romanticism is ‘a zero’ perception of the Judeo-Christian religion basis, at which the relationship between the Creator and the creation are translated into the sphere of relations between ‘Me’ and ‘Not-me’. However, Neo-Marxists of the Freudian wing Jerome J. McGann condemned both the “religious” approach to Romanticism and Romanticism as such in his book “The Romantic Ideology” (McGann, 1983). For Jerome J. McGann the essence of Romanticism is in inappropriate flee of culture from social issues and in the unconscious repression of this process. In the nineties of the 20th century, the pendulum of attitude towards Romanticism in foreign literary criticism stopped in the middle. In his book “The Romantic Reformation” Robert M. Ryan criticized M. H. Abrams (for excessive ‘teologizing’ of Romanticism) and Jerome J. McGann (for uncritical acceptance of M. H. Abrams’ theories) (Ryan, 1977). However, Robert M. Ryan still found romanticists prone to the religious quest. In contrast to him in the monograph “Romantic Atheism” an orthodox Marxist Martin Priestman named all romanticists ‘infidels’ in terms of high praise (Priestman, 1999). Then Daniel White (White, 2006) contrasted Romanticism to ‘non-denominational Protestantism’ and deconstructivists G. Hopps and J. Stabler condemned Martin Priestman for his dogmatic approach to postulates of Marxism (Hopps, Stabler, 2006). However, both “Biedermeier” methodology of V. Nemoyanu and religious methodologies of M. Abrams, R. Ryan and D. White, as well as the Marxist methodology of Jerome J. McGann and Martin Priestman, and methodology for deconstructivists G. Hopps and J. Stabler – all these diverse methodologies leave open the possibility for the existence of ‘Neo Romanticism’, ‘Romanticism beyond the concrete historical Romanticism’. The basic part of this article focuses on how the problem of “Neo Romanticism” was solved in the Soviet literary research in the 60-80s of the 20th century, as well as in the Russian criticism of the 30-40s of the 19th century. In 1966 “Iskusstvo” Moscow publishing house, significant for the Soviet literary science of that time, published a monograph by V. V. Vanslov “The Aesthetics of Romanticism” (Vanslov, 1966). Its significance is proved by the fact that there were references to this monograph by V. V. Vanslov in almost every Soviet scientific publication, dedicated to the theme of Romanticism, within 1967-1985. V. V. Vanslov considered Romanticism as a concrete historical direction in the global culture of the last decade of the 18th – the first half of the 19th centuries in detail. On the last pages of the monograph V. V. Vanslov raised the question about the possibility of ‘Romanticism’ existence in the Soviet literature and gave an unambiguous answer to it: “There is a point of view according to which a romantic method in the Soviet art should be spoken about in terms of its simultaneous coexistence with socialist realism as a byproduct of the principal method. This view seems to us erroneous. The admission, along with socialist realism as the main method, of a mere realism, romanticism and others (maybe classicism, naturalism?) not the basic, yet equally legitimate, independent methods is substantially equal to failure, at least in part, from artistic progress and the preservation of our modern methods born by the past eras and specific namely for them” (Vanslov, 1966). V. V. Vanslov explained the reasons for the emergence of this (incorrect, in his opinion) point of view, reducing to paronyms confusion – ‘romantic’ and ‘Romanticism’: